Donald Trump Hints At Constitution-Breaking 3rd Term As President

[Geisterfahrer]

I really think this is a narrative that needs to die. It’s up there with “Trump is playing 4-D chess.” This isn’t bait. It’s not subterfuge to throw us off his trail. Trump isn’t capable of subtlety or gamesmanship at this level.

As with virtually everything he’s said since 2015–he’s being honest (at least insofar as he’s capable of honesty). He’s telegraphing his plans.

We’ve long been told by Rs that we should take Trump “seriously but not literally.” THAT is the bait. The truth is we should always take him literally.

I disagree. I think he knows he can direct media attention on this and with limited resources, editors and producers push other things down the page/off the screen. It’s simplistic and fits his MO imho.

 

[farce©]

Trump isn’t capable of subtlety or gamesmanship at this level.

But Stephen Miller or other neo-nazis in Trumps orbit are.

 

[EyeballKid]

I disagree. I think he knows he can direct media attention on this and with limited resources, editors and producers push other things down the page/off the screen. It’s simplistic and fits his MO imho.

I’d say it’s not a very effective strategy, then.

—The press is still discussing the Signal fiasco, and the calls for a full investigation and dismissing Waltz are still quite loud.

—The press is still discussing the tariff fiasco and the market impact.

—The press is still discussing Greenland, Putin, Panama, Etc.

—The press a still discussing DOGE and the ongoing destruction of all of our governmental institutions.

I get that “flooding the zone” is the goal—but adding one more item (and one that he’s bandied about for a couple years now) isn’t detracting/distracting from a focus on all the other assaults he’s committing.

 

[05C40]

You also have to trust Vance would actually step down. I don't see a world where that trusts exists.

Just because you and I are incapable of imagining what kind of disturbing/kinky/weird things "Bible Thumping" Republicans do in private or when they think no one is watching, doesn't mean that SVR or FSB doesn't know about them.

 

[dukeman92]

The whole 3rd term is bait and the media eats it up.

I don't understand why they're normalizing this.

 

[EyeballKid]

I don't understand why they're normalizing this.

Who’s normalizing it?

I’ve been listening to NPR this AM, and every interviewee is basically screaming at the top of their lungs that this is not normal, that we’re in the midst of an authoritarian takeover that we’ve never seen in the history of the US, and that Trump’s rhetoric around seeking a 3rd term is just another example of the erosion of our democratic and constitutional norms.

Same with all other “traditional” media—I don’t see folks saying “ah, this is all perfectly normal, just standard US politics.”

 

[dukeman92]

This is true. But Trump says there are "other ways" to accomplish this "third term" which he refuses to reveal. That is why I believe this is a contrived controversy to provide a distraction while they engage in some seriously criminal shit.

More serious than all the serious shit they've done so far?

 

[dukeman92]

Who’s normalizing it?

I’ve been listening to NPR this AM, and every interviewee is basically screaming at the top of their lungs that this is not normal, that we’re in the midst of an authoritarian takeover that we’ve never seen in the history of the US, and that Trump’s rhetoric around seeking a 3rd term is just another example of the erosion of our democratic and constitutional norms.

Same with all other “traditional” media—I don’t see folks saying “ah, this is all perfectly normal, just standard US politics.”

The media normalizes it in the way that they cover it. They talk about it as if the decision is up to Trump. It's not.

 

[EyeballKid]

The media normalizes it in the way that they cover it. They talk about it as if the decision is up to Trump. It's not.

That’s not been my experience.

That said, it absolutely IS up to Trump whether he wants to attempt to subvert our norms by seeking a 3rd term. There are ways that he can (and likely will) try to do just that. This isn’t an idle threat, just an attempt to gin up press.

 

[finesse]

They're equivocating until they see who wins between the executive branch and the judicial branch. If the judicial branch can't rein him in, there's nothing off limits. The chickenshit legislature isn't going to do anything except posture.

 

[superrific]

This is the text of the 22nd Amendment:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So it doesn't say a President is limited to serving two terms; it says he's limited in the number of terms he can be elected to. I think it's fairly clear that this would not bar Trump from serving as President again if he legitimately got there in a way other than being elected as President: for example, if he were elected to VP or another position in the line of succession and then, under the existing succession rules, succeeded to the presidency due to the folks ahead of him in line dying, resigning, etc.

So to me, the obvious way for Trump to end up President again is to run as VP (or, I guess, get into the House and become speaker) and have the folks in front of him resign, or die, in his favor. (Or just leave the sitting President in place as a puppet and be the shadow president.) It would be a fairly transparent ploy to end up as President again, but it would be within the existing framework of the Constitution. Any solution where he purports to be elected as President again, though, is blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

It's not that simple. There's also the 12th Amendment interaction. Let's go through this:

1. You're right that the 22nd doesn't prevent a person from serving as president even if term-limited for an election. For instance, if Trump attempts another full coup (e.g. defying Supreme Court orders), and the response is a counter-coup -- or more accurately the military removing a lawless commander -- then Barack Obama could fill the role of interim presidency while a new election is scheduled. This is an exaggerated hypo but it gets across the point and it's a point I think we all agree on.

2. It also doesn't prevent the term-limited president from serving as vice president. So, if say in 2029 the Pub were to win, VP Rubio could resign; Congress ratifies Trump as the new VP, and then President Spineless Q. GenericGOP resigns to make Trump president. All legal. I think, though this gets into the 12th interaction a little bit

3. But can Trump be elected as Vice President? That's where the 12th comes in, right? No personally constitutionally ineligible to the office of the president shall be eligible for Vice-president. What exactly does this mean? What does it mean to be constitutionally ineligible?

Here's how I interpret the last sentence of the 12th (this is in part based on readings about the ratification of the 12th and 22nd): it's an anti-loophole provision. We went from a system where the VP was a candidate for president -- meaning that the system necessarily ensured that the VP had the same requirements as president. When the VP became part of a ticket, that guardrail was removed and so they put in another one. As an anti-loophole provision, it prohibits all backdoor ways of sneaking someone into the office who couldn't otherwise get there.

Obviously the 12th Amendment didn't know about the 22nd. It couldn't even have imagined the 22nd, for a number of reasons (including the lack of direct voter election of the president). It is a constitution we are expounding (see Marbury v Madison), meaning that we should not read provisions to be limited to a specific set of facts and our interpretive lens has to widen at least a little (even for originalists) due to the absurdity of projecting a century into the future. So I'm comfortable with the 12th as an anti-loophole provision and I think it's quite clearly the best reading.

4. But does the 22nd fall within the anti-loophole provision? It would be possible, after all, for a subsequent amendment to create a loophole that supersedes the general anti-loophole rule of the 12th. Let's say an amendment passed that read, "A president who has served two non-consecutive terms may run for office as the Vice-President)." Pretty clearly that would govern and the 12th would be not implicated. So did the 22nd do something like that?

My understanding is that Congress did pay some attention to the awkward fit of the 22nd and the 12th -- but it was generally assumed that they were enacting a ban on being elected to more than two-terms full stop. They were not permitting a workaround of going through the VP office.

The reason for the elected language was Harry S Truman. The amendment was proposed and passed Congress in 1947. As it was originally written, it would have potentially barred Truman from seeking re-election in 1952, and the Dems (nor Truman) would be not on board with that. So they went with the elected language at first, but there were concerns that such language wouldn't be sufficient to protect Truman. Thus, they added the second sentence of section 1 (which is longer than the first sentence) explaining that the amendment simply wouldn't apply to Truman. They did not, however, go back to fix the first sentence -- probably because they didn't want to overturn the apple cart in terms of what had already been agreed.

****
So my analysis is: 12th is anti-loophole provision that doesn't allow the vice-presidential gambit for a third term. The 22nd neither creates a loophole or disclaims the application of the 12th. The VP gambit is unconstitutional.

It does not mean that a Speaker gambit would be unconstitutional.

 

[dukeman92]

That’s not been my experience.

That said, it absolutely IS up to Trump whether he wants to attempt to subvert our norms by seeking a 3rd term. There are ways that he can (and likely will) try to do just that. This isn’t an idle threat, just an attempt to gin up press.

Running for a third term isn't up to him. It's against the constitution. Its a non-starter.

 

[4thgenheel]

I really think this is a narrative that needs to die. It’s up there with “Trump is playing 4-D chess.” This isn’t bait. It’s not subterfuge to throw us off his trail. Trump isn’t capable of subtlety or gamesmanship at this level.

As with virtually everything he’s said since 2015–he’s being honest (at least insofar as he’s capable of honesty). He’s telegraphing his plans.

We’ve long been told by Rs that we should take Trump “seriously but not literally.” THAT is the bait. The truth is we should always take him literally.

both perspectives are accurate at times.

the right is flooding the hell out of the zone right now. big part of their current governing and power consolidation strategy. and not all of the shit they're throwing at the wall is sticking.

and trump often says wild things that we're assured aren't real/serious by the maga bozos on this board that turn out to be all too true.

 

[Mulberry Heel]

This is the text of the 22nd Amendment:

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."

So it doesn't say a President is limited to serving two terms; it says he's limited in the number of terms he can be elected to. I think it's fairly clear that this would not bar Trump from serving as President again if he legitimately got there in a way other than being elected as President: for example, if he were elected to VP or another position in the line of succession and then, under the existing succession rules, succeeded to the presidency due to the folks ahead of him in line dying, resigning, etc.

So to me, the obvious way for Trump to end up President again is to run as VP (or, I guess, get into the House and become speaker) and have the folks in front of him resign, or die, in his favor. (Or just leave the sitting President in place as a puppet and be the shadow president.) It would be a fairly transparent ploy to end up as President again, but it would be within the existing framework of the Constitution. Any solution where he purports to be elected as President again, though, is blatantly unconstitutional on its face.

It may not specifically say that, but I think it is clear that the intention of the Amendment was to prevent another FDR-type situation of a POTUS serving more than two terms as president, period. Otherwise the amendment would never have been added to the constitution. You're right in that given the specific wording there may be some sneaky ways to try and get around it, but the clear intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from serving more than two terms, whether they became VP after two terms as POTUS and took over or whatever the situation or scheme they came up with to stay in office. So for Trump to become POTUS using some scheme like becoming VP or House Speaker and having/forcing the people above him to quit would clearly be in violation of the intention of the 22nd Amendment.

Having said that, nothing that this administration does would surprise me, so it would not be a shock for them to come up with something like this, or just ignore the 22nd Amendment and run again anyway. He clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants right now except for those pesky judges that he's starting to ignore on at least some issues, so why let the 22nd block him from another, god-ordained term?

 

[CharmCityTiger]

This is all 4D chess to get the republicans to allow us to run Obama for a third term.

 

[BlooVooDoo]

Wouldn’t state laws re: getting his name on ballot come into play? I assume most require constitutional eligibility.

 

[superrific]

I really don't think we need to worry about a third term for Trump. For one thing, he'll be 82-83 -- and he's already been slipping. Second, his approval rating will be in the 20s. The GOP will be trying to run away from him, not embrace him. No way they are going to orchestrate some special plan to keep him on the ticket only to get killed in the election.

If there's not a fair election in 2028, then it doesn't really matter.

 

[superrific]

Wouldn’t state laws re: getting his name on ballot come into play? I assume most require constitutional eligibility.

1. I doubt they would come into play for a general election. I think they tend to presume that the parties will only nominate constitutionally eligible candidates. Thus, most of the eligibility issues come in play during the primaries (remember -- the Colorado ruling on insurrection that was overturned came in the context of the primary ballot).

2. The Supreme Court only specified in Trump v. Anderson the conditions by which a candidate can be disqualified under section 3 of the 14th, but the overall tenor of the opinion is that states should not try to make national decisions about candidate eligibility.

It's tricky, because this cuts both ways. Arizona tried to make the provision of a birth certificate a requirement for being on the ballot in Arizona, and the courts struck that down -- and good, because Arizona was obviously fishing for some bullshit reason to exclude Obama. In essence, the Court said that Arizona can't impose new requirements on presidential eligibility. Here, we would not be adding but enforcing such requirements. Still, I'd guess this court would say something like:

The constitution specifies certain characteristics required for a person to be president. None of them are "ability to prove eligibility in a court of law." So while a candidate has to be a natural born citizen, a state cannot make him/her prove it or else that would be adding a requirement.

Yes, bullshit, but less bullshit than Trump v. US

 

[rodoheel]

It may not specifically say that, but I think it is clear that the intention of the Amendment was to prevent another FDR-type situation of a POTUS serving more than two terms as president, period. Otherwise the amendment would never have been added to the constitution. You're right in that given the specific wording there may be some sneaky ways to try and get around it, but the clear intent of the amendment was to prevent someone from serving more than two terms, whether they became VP after two terms as POTUS and took over or whatever the situation or scheme they came up with to stay in office. So for Trump to become POTUS using some scheme like becoming VP or House Speaker and having/forcing the people above him to quit would clearly be in violation of the intention of the 22nd Amendment.

Having said that, nothing that this administration does would surprise me, so it would not be a shock for them to come up with something like this, or just ignore the 22nd Amendment and run again anyway. He clearly thinks he can do whatever he wants right now except for those pesky judges that he's starting to ignore on at least some issues, so why let the 22nd block him from another, god-ordained term?

I don't entirely agree. It would have been very easy to draft the amendment to prevent someone serving more than 2 terms as President, as opposed to being elected President more than twice, if that's what it meant. I don't think there's any "sneaky" reading required to get to that conclusion. It's the plain text of the amendment. The better question is whether people would vote for a "Trump as VP and clearly true President" ticket.

 

[rodoheel]

Second, his approval rating will be in the 20s. The GOP will be trying to run away from him, not embrace him.

The idea that the GOP will be running away from Trump in 2028 is as naive as the thought many expressed after J6 that the GOP would be running away from him in 2024. Trump has an absolute stranglehold on a plurality, if not a majority, of the party's voters. They will simply never admit he did anything wrong (or that they were wrong about him). Trump will be the primary power broker in the party as long as he is alive - able to singlehandedly tank any Republican candidate on his own - and after he dies he will be a revered hero on the far right for years to come - like Reagan but for the MAGA crowd instead of the Chamber of Commerce crowd.

People have been predicting the Republicans distancing themselves from Trump for like 8 years now. I may have been one of those people in the past, but I won't be now. He has built the party utterly in his image as a cult of personality around himself. The only fight when he's gone will be to be the person who inherits and carries on his supposed legacy, either with his blessing (if alive) or by convincing voters that they're the rightful heir (if he's dead).

It would take a disaster of epic proportions that could only logically be blamed on Trump for Republicans to be running away from him at the national level in 2028. It's candidly hard to visualize what that might be. Even tanking the economy, which he's doing his dangedest to do, won't be enough, IMO.